But barely a page into it (by the end of paragraph 6, and heavily reinforced in paragraph 7), I'm already barreled over by what looks like some seriously intense sexism. Maybe the article misrepresents him, but Mike Lanza appears to place the blame for overprotective parenting primarily on moms ("mom philosophy", he calls it, though the article's author tries to shelter him by generalizing the term) dominating "passive dads". He describes the fun and freedom that he advocates as "masculine experiences". While the article does mention and show some girls, most of the quotes from Lanza are about boys and what they need. (The article even politely specifies that "his focus is on boys", without comment.)
I'm not okay with any of that. I could express that as anger on behalf of my wife (who doesn't buy into overprotective parenting any more than I do) or on behalf of my daughter (who was begging me just this week to lift her into a tree again and again). But honestly I'd be just as annoyed if they weren't in my life. It ought to be obvious in this day and age that "I blame moms!" is an embarrassing (and harmful) way to ground an argument.
Calling for revival of the term "sissy" and normalizing bullying as "normal, boyish aggression" in paragraph 9 was just one step too much for me. Sorry: I'm out. There are plenty of people advocating similar "free range kids" philosophies who aren't also assholes.